Peadar Tóibín
Question:284. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration his plans to reform the court system application process and stop it being used as a tool of abuse (details supplied) [38446/26]
View answerThursday, 21 May 2026
Questions (284)
Written answers
Decisions to place restrictions on individuals initiating proceedings may, in certain circumstances, be made by a court, either on its own initiative or following an application, where proceedings are considered frivolous or vexatious.
Firstly, a court may, in appropriate cases, strike out a frivolous or vexatious application or an application which is bound to fail.
In circumstances where a person repeatedly brings vexatious or frivolous applications, a court may make an “Isaac Wunder” Litigation Restriction Order. The effect of an Isaac Wunder order is that it requires the person to first obtain the permission of the Court before initiating any further cases. This order shields defendants from further vexatious applications.
The Supreme Court has, in its January 2026 judgment in the case of M v M ([2026] IESC 2), clarified that the Circuit and District Courts may make Isaac Wunder orders preventing further vexatious applications in those Courts. The court observed that the right of access to the courts must be balanced with the rights of defendants not to be repeatedly made the subject of vexatious litigation, or litigation that is bound to fail, and that there is nothing in the ECHR jurisprudence that prohibits or prevents restrictions being placed on an individual’s right of access to the courts in appropriate circumstances.
Previously it had been thought that Isaac Wunder orders could only be obtained in the first instance from the High Court.
On 28 January 2026, the President of the High Court issued a Practice Direction (HC135) on Isaac Wunder/ Litigation Restriction Orders: Procedures and Related Matters. The Circuit Court also introduced a Practice Direction on this matter, which took effect on 5 May 2026.